all users can speak the language of the interface.
No they don't, and I think this video pretty effectively refutes that claim. i do however think that all users can understand the interface, but this comes from repetition mostly. our moms know how to use computers because someone has showed them how, and they've done it lots of times, but have you ever tried to watch them figure something new out?
a language designed by a small group of people and adapted by millions of computer users.
this is crazy to think about. i always like thinking of the converse when i read stuff like this. so what is a language designed by millions of people for a small group? what is a language designed by millions of people for millions of people? (lol, ttyl, :), lmao, rofl, wtf, btw, etc)
i wonder if that counts. hmm...
are we wired to understand the interface? since we all adopt it so easily?
we adopt them due to their basis in previous paradigms.
how could we make a case that we are wired to understand the interface? i don't think it is my knowledge of physical desktop dynamics that allows me to understand the workings of my digital computer desktop. also, it isn't really an exact approximation of how the desktop works its just the language that is the same. people usually keep files in a filing cabinet next to their desk not on it, and who puts files within each other? i understand the desktop as a metaphor, but i don't think it's because of my knowledge of desktops that i understand computers. i think it is the human predisposition to systematize things that allows us to understand computers. is there a real world hunter-gatherer...thing (for lack of a better word) that would have evolved into an ability to inherently understand the computer interface? i think it's fun to think that there is.
the camera has become the metaphor for the 3D computer interaction.
yeah...
directing the virtual camera becomes as important as controlling the hero's action.
i feel like i take this concept for granted. that direction comes out of necessity, and it has gotten better and easier to do, but i remember hating this interaction when i was a kid and 3D games first came out. previous games what is in front of you is to the right of the screen since these were "side-scrolling" adventures, but now what is in front of you is in the middle of the screen, but your character is in the middle of the screen, so how do they reconcile that? well, make the user move the camera. i want a better solution.
one wants the computer screen to be a dense and flat information surface whereas the other insists that it become a window into a virtual space.
but then to present the user with information in the virtual space a scrim masks the space and text appears thus breaking the experience. i still have yet to see a seamless integration of the two ideas. how can i present you with rich information, and make you feel as though you are moving trough a virtual space.
why am i pressing a button that presses a button?
i thought of this while reading. i have to press a physical button, that then presses a virtual button, that then makes something happen. strange. i want to eliminate one of these buttons. get rid of this stupid typewriter model of computer interaction. i don't always need the alphabet and numbers when i'm working on a computer, so why do i always have to look at it? make my keyboard change depending on what i'm doing. separate the interface from the interaction. dual screens, the lower that replaces the keyboard becomes a fluctuating touchscreen with the interface on it, while the upper is a data display space. hmm, would this disconnection destroy the ability for the user to easily know what buttons go with what?...hmm...HELL NO! lets do it!
No comments:
Post a Comment